R v Tangi (No 12) - [2020] NSWSC 547

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tangi (No 12) [2020] NSWSC 547
Hearing dates: 20-21, 25-29 November, 2-6, 9-13, 18-20, 23-24 December 2019, 2 January, 8 May 2020
Date of orders: 13 May 2020
Decision date: 13 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 22 years and 6 months, commencing 8 July 2017 and concluding 7 January 2040, with the remainder of term of a further 7 years and 6 months, concluding 7 July 2047.

Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – murder – prisoner murdered fellow inmate – intention in inflict grievous bodily harm – planning – assessment of objective seriousness – sentence imposed following finding of guilt by jury after trial – no remorse
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
Cases Cited: Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Abraham Ryan Tangi (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
G Wendler (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutors (NSW) (Crown)
Universal Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/242644

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Abraham Ryan Tangi, the offender, was convicted by a jury of murder, the most serious crime in the criminal calendar. Murder is an offence under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. There is also a prescribed standard non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment, each of which are guideposts in the fixing of a sentence. The assault occurred on 19 June 2017. The deceased died on 29 June 2017.
The murder occurred while the offender was incarcerated at the John Morony Correctional Complex and the deceased, Zaydoun Al-Qaseer, was a fellow prisoner. The factual background to the offence and the conduct can be summarised briefly.

Facts

The deceased, was 24 years and 5 months’ old at the time of his death. He was significantly smaller and lighter than the offender. And he was less fit.
On or about 18 June 2017, the offender and the deceased had an oral argument. The argument continued from time-to-time until the assault the following day. As a result of one of the arguments, the offender was observed by his cellmate to be stressed and appeared to be extremely angry. There were two further incidents involving the offender and the deceased, after the initial oral argument and earlier in the day of 19 June.
That day, the offender waited for the deceased outside Cell 24 for some minutes, having prearranged to meet with the deceased and the offender ushered the deceased into his cell.
Michael Palalagi stood outside Cell 24, the offender’s cell, where the assault occurred, and, on the version of events which I accept, held the Cell door closed so that no one was able to enter.
The Crown submits that the presence of Mr Palalagi and two other inmates was organised…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Tangi (No 12)

Details

AGLC: R v Tangi (No 12) [2020] NSWSC 547
Case: [2020] NSWSC 547
Decision Date: 13 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the murder of a fellow inmate, Tangi, by another prisoner, the accused. The court was tasked with assessing the appropriate sentence following the accused's conviction by a jury. The central issue was the determination of the appropriate sentence for the murder, considering the accused's lack of remorse and the circumstances surrounding the offence. Specifically, the court needed to decide on the objective seriousness of the crime and the level of planning involved.

The court considered the absence of remorse and the nature of the crime, which was a premeditated attack resulting in the death of the victim. The accused had demonstrated a clear intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, which was executed with a level of planning that underscored the severity of the offence. The court examined the objective seriousness of the crime, including the impact on the victim and their family, as well as the broader implications for prison security and the community. Given the premeditated nature of the attack and the lack of remorse shown by the accused, the court found the crime to be of significant objective seriousness.

In light of these considerations, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to ensure public safety. The court balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to provide a measure of deterrence against similar offences in the future. The court emphasised the importance of accountability and the role of the criminal justice system in maintaining order and protecting society.

Orders